Madeleine McCann: Key Details 'Were Wrong'

Iris wrote:

kitti wrote:https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1393470_1426747994211248_1929302078_n.jpg

Quite.  Nice to see that in these times of austerity, our taxes are being prudently spent.

Now Iris. They did the reconstruction in Spain to save money on the flights so they are trying their best to save money.

cass wrote:so if the mcanns and friends are found out lying and things happened before the 3rd for example - when did murrat go back to portugal ?

According to Murat.... Tuesday 1st May, 9:40 a.m.

Yes, in a rush, wasn't it?

wjk wrote:Yes, in a rush, wasn't it?

Yes, if I remember rightly he booked the flight from the uk very late the night before, midnight or so, then had to leave for the airport around 4 am. It was then he and Gerrys phone were coincidentally switched back on within minutes of each other, when rm got back to PDL.

Iris wrote:

kitti wrote:So how did Madeleine get to the tennis court at 6pm when she was in the apt at 6pm with Kate McCann?

 Quite.  Either the Crimewatch reconstruction is wrong, and therefore worthless, or all the people who have made statements are all lying.  Both versions cannot be correct.

ETA - surely the McCanns participated, or at least advised, on this reconstruction?  Why didn't one of them say, but this is not what happened, Madeleine was not at the tennis court?  Are they now trying to make out that she was?  Why say something completely different in a rogatory statement, then?

Perhaps they didn't. Their spokesperson has always attempted to show that SY are keeping the McCanns informed at all stages, but perhaps this is not altogether true.
Television programmes are not necessarily made in chronological sequence, and are edited to bring the various sequences together. It should have been made according only to SY evidence and perhaps the McCanns have not been allowed sight of certain details;

I live in hopes of an Agatha Christie-type gathering in the library (studio) where the guilty parties are exposed.

mossman wrote:

wjk wrote:Yes, in a rush, wasn't it?

Yes, if I remember rightly he booked the flight from the uk very late the night before, midnight or so, then had to leave for the airport around 4 am.  It was then he and Gerrys phone were coincidentally switched back on within minutes of each other, when rm got back to PDL.

Thanks mossman   

ok but is there a record of them having contact by phone or anything else. I don't think RM is involved in her disappearance.

mossman wrote:

wjk wrote:Yes, in a rush, wasn't it?

Yes, if I remember rightly he booked the flight from the uk very late the night before, midnight or so, then had to leave for the airport around 4 am.  It was then he and Gerrys phone were coincidentally switched back on within minutes of each other, when rm got back to PDL.

Beat me to it, mossman.... I recall he booked late on 30th April.

tanszi wrote:ok but is there a record of them having contact by phone or anything else.  I don't think RM is involved in her disappearance.

In the interests of clarity, I was not suggesting that. Just merely remembering the sequence of events of his quick return.

Where does this new version leave Jane Tanner's bundleman (the man carrying a child away from the direction of the apartment)? Team McCann have always insisted this was the abductor. Is this now going to be abandoned?

I don't think that Kate and Gerry will ever admit what they have done (what would Kate's mother think?), but I do think that all of this pressure could lead to one or a number of their friends/ex-friends to volunteer some information. At the very least, the friends have perverted the course of justice and wasted police time if SY are now discounting their time line, which they all went along with for 6 years.

A_T wrote:Where does this new version leave Jane Tanner's bundleman (the man carrying a child away from the direction of the apartment)? Team McCann have always insisted this was the abductor. Is this now going to be abandoned?

I dont think so as the trailer has the feet being carried away

chrissie1 wrote:

A_T wrote:Where does this new version leave Jane Tanner's bundleman (the man carrying a child away from the direction of the apartment)? Team McCann have always insisted this was the abductor. Is this now going to be abandoned?

I dont think so as the trailer has the feet being carried away

In that case I think Crimewatch is going to claim that the abductor was in the apartment while Gerry did his check.

but then if this is correct (I love fairy stories) the person together with carried sleeping child, not waking up other children in room, would then have to leave by the front door because G and Jez are talking out the front, and Jane is not far from them. crowded already. so how would he/she know that they are all out there and not to go out through patio doors.

Not that tired old theory of the abductor beng in the apartment.  This is depressing.

kitti wrote:https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/1383523_1426756294210418_1133974147_n.jpg

WHAT IS THAT ON RIGHT HAND SIDE?

Panda wrote:

DavidA wrote:

wjk wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

Panda wrote:
It's not the last photo of Madeleine, it's an actress used . Check out the Telegraph thread , the photo is on there.

Nesbitt isn't talking about the child actress - he means the actual Madeleine tennis ball photo from May 1st.

So, if this IS the last photo of Madeleine, taken on the 1st, is this the last time she was seen by any independent witnesses?
I'm wondering if AR is asking for anyone, other than the Tapas lot, to come forward if they saw Madeleine after that photo was taken on the 1st.

As I have said some times before, the problem with GAs account in my opinion is that he focuses only on the 3rd.

However, we know the children crying was a problem for the McCanns before the 3rd. So why leave her alone again? This absolutely does not make sense. It would be risking more intervention with Ocean Club staff.

So why would they leave her again? Perhaps because whatever happened had already happened, but they needed it to look like it happened in the 3rd.


About this statement posted by almostgothic. It is from twitter and does not use the words Robert Nesbitt used. Does anyone know what he said exactly? Otherwise it is not useful to focus very much on this statement.


However, if this statement is correct, then that means only the poolside photo is the only evidence that Madeleine was not 'disappeared' on 2nd and 3rd. However, we need clarification for this statement because it is very important.

I don't know anything about the Nesbitt comment, but surely the Creche's signings would tell us something. As for leaving Madeleine again they are hardfaced Parents who probably gave the three children Calpol but Madeleine woke up earlier than planned and Mrs Fenn heard her crying for over an hour .......yet they still went out the next night.!!!

The problem I think here is that the focus on McCanns being bad parents adds support to the abduction theory. Everyone on this site needs to be clear about that. You say "yet they still went out the next night". However, I think the more important question is why. Why would they want to bring attention to them from Ocean Club staff (who are reported to have already spoken to them about leaving the children)?

It seems many people in this forum are too involved in 'bashing' the McCanns but not looking more closely at 'why'.

Most importantly is that the key information so far in this thread is suggesting that there is less evidence of Madeleine on the 2nd and 3rd, if the tennis photo is from the 1st.

I have said for years that I do not think the event happened on the 3rd. But almost every thread here follows the same pattern with McCanns being called bad parents and other ideas are lost. Leaving her on the 3rd was not logical for the McCanns, regardless of if they were good or bad parents.

But Panda, I do appreciate that you continue topics here and quote previous posts. Not enough people here do that.

Badboy wrote:

kitti wrote:https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/1383523_1426756294210418_1133974147_n.jpg

WHAT IS THAT ON RIGHT HAND SIDE?

I do not understand the question. This is the standard old photo of Madeleine with nothing new, and the other two are only reconstructions.

ITS OF CLARRIE

Badboy wrote:ITS OF CLARRIE

With Redwood just peeking in!

DavidA wrote:

Most importantly is that the key information so far in this thread is suggesting that there is less evidence of Madeleine on the 2nd and 3rd, if the tennis photo is from the 1st.

I have said for years that I do not think the event happened on the 3rd. But almost every thread here follows the same pattern with McCanns being called bad parents and other ideas are lost. Leaving her on the 3rd was not logical for the McCanns, regardless of if they were good or bad parents.

From the weather on the holiday a lot of people suggested the poolside photo was the first day as that was sunny and warm.  What l did say ages ago was that it would have been helpful to have the copies of the photos from the Mccanns camera in a chronological order, but l believe they aren't like that in the released PJ files - then we would know which was indeed the last photo taken.

It would even be possible from known events that week that the children participated in if there were photos of them, plus cross referencing any trips out with debit card information, how many days had elapsed.

I don't know if SY are playing a blinder or setting up a whitewash but l know the Mccanns look terrible lately so you would assume things are not going well for them. They have no alternative but to take part in the crime watch programme even though Redwood has now said events on 3rd are wrong and he's widened the timeframe from 8.30-10pm, again what's he's doing is disregarding the tapas 9s stories of checking and tanners sighting. Let's hope he means 'l know an abduction didn't take place then but l know something was moved.....'

Still interesting....

i really dont know what to make of it all - why wait 6 mths - unless they are not now looking for a alive madeleine - wonder if the programme will be edited at some stage from the trailers - the kate it isnt out fault doesnt put her in good light - what got her so upset that she made that comment ?infact thinking about it why have trailers anyway - in the hope that someone phones sy before the programme is on air - i have even wondered if it will be on air today - or kate not being live unwell or something

cass wrote:i really dont know what to make of it all - why wait 6 mths - unless they are not now looking for a alive madeleine - wonder if the programme will be edited at some stage from the trailers - the kate it isnt out fault doesnt put her in good light - what got her so upset that she made that comment ?infact thinking about it why have trailers anyway - in the hope that someone phones sy before the programme is on air - i have even wondered if it will be on air today - or kate not being live unwell or something

I have been thinking about that awful comment for a couple of days now Cass. It has seriously upset me. How can any mother, in their right senses, refer to their own wee daughter as "the little girl" as though she's some sort of random item that belongs to somebody else. Then I thought harder, and I think that that is a very old quote indeed. From 2007. I am sure I have heard it before. I think it was right away back at the early days when people first started to criticise them for leaving the kids alone.

Which now makes me wonder - how much of an input have the McScum actually had in the making of this Crimewatch show, if that's not a recent recording?

it has upset me too iris - i even went off on one telling my hubby about the comment - and although he thinks im obsessed about the case - yep he said she never said that did she ? wonder how much imput and what questions the crimewatch team was allowed to ask ? wonder if the lawyers were there during the film too - so many unanswered questions

wjk wrote:IMO, because it all happened on 1st when the Tennis photo was taken and Mrs Fenn heard the crying.

I maybe wrong, but can somebody help me, on 1st May 07
wasn't there a big European football match on, and I think
Liverpool was playing. I know I've read that somewhere.
Anyway, as Gerry was a footy fan, and I dare say some of
the other tapas lot, they would have had to go further
afield than MW complex, I would think. Chaplins?
This may explain Mrs Fenn hearing the crying, because
the lot of them were going football crazy!

DavidA I have a different train of thought to what you are saying. Being a bad parent doesn't necessarily support the abduction theory. who would know that the mCcs left their children every night; or that the patio door was open giving easy access. don't forget initially even the McCs werent clear about whether the front door or patio doors were locked or not. so what may people discuss and talk about is what is known from files, interviews etc., I for one believe there are too many inconsistencies to take at face value all that has been said. I think this has been the problem from the start. too many inconsistencies and discrepancies, so we discuss what is in the files and what the McCs and T7 have reported to the PJ.